Hi, I'm Stacy, and I graduated from college in 2006. I am not condoning plagarism of any kind, but am putting my essays online to help with general writer's block. Learning by example is one of the most widely recognized methods of self instruction and effective tutoring. Feel free to read one of my essays to help you write your own! Donations are appreciated.

Book Critique of John R. Chavez's The Lost Land

In the 1960s Mexican Americans lost patience with the slow pace of New Frontier social and economic programs and decided that just as things were beginning to move, vocal protests and demonstrations would attract more attention than simply waiting. Out of the Chicano movement came greater opportunities in education, politics, and rights of labor. The success can be measured in the fine studies produced in the 1970s by such Chicano scholars as Alberto Camarillo, Richard Griswold del Castillo, Ricardo Romo, Oscar Martinez, and others. Their work has helped to overcome the neglect to the historical presence and contributions of Mexican Americans in American history.

Nevertheless, the belief in Chicano repossession of the Southwest smolders on, and it is this belief that is addressed by John R. Chávez. He surveys the Hispanic presence in the Southwest from prehistoric times to the present, arguing forcefully that Chicanos first settled the Southwest, were dispossessed of their patrimony by Anglo conquest, long endured economic, political, and educational subjugation, and are now seeking to regain control of what was once theirs.

Although significant gains have been made in civil rights and liberties and in education, Chicanos are still an economically deprived group, lacking status in American society. Chávez offers a pessimistic conclusion to his book, for the 1980s carry a spirit of the times rather different from, the 1960s. "As a result," he writes, "for the foreseeable future, the Chicanos' image of the land as lost, and of themselves as dispossessed, would continue to have credibility" (p. 155).

He says that Chicanos are not immigrants, but that their historical roots were planted in the Southwest centuries before the Anglos appeared. He even ventures so far as to compare Chicanos with Palestinians as dispossessed groups. His weakest argument lies in saying that there is little conflict between the claims of Chicanos and Native Americans. "Since Chicanos are racially 70 to 80 percent Indian," he argues, "they do indeed have much in common with Native Americans, a fact that must be considered in discussions of claims to the Southwest" (p. 4).

But Chávez does not consider the overlapping claims at all; his book is full of references to "wild," "uncivilized," "nomadic," and "pagan" Indians who occupied lands on which the Spanish settlers acted as intruders. By making his argument selective, he minimizes Indian-Spanish conflict in order to create an Indian-Hispanic heritage in the Southwest that culturally and historically has little to validate it.

Chávez's study has much to offer as an explanation of Chicano grievances, and readers who are willing to get past his insistence that his view of Chicanos in the Southwest is the proper one will find his viewpoint on Southwestern history. That history interesting.